The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[KenjiOgiwara]

16 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Yeah I saw that and it pissed me off.  I generally try not to slag off refs so much but I'd love to hear Atkinson try and explain why he didnt follow a pretty simple law of the game.  I don't think we would simply have steamrolled Bournemouth afterwards but it would make a big difference anyhow.

I agree, they have a difficult job, and rarely get praise when they deserve it. But personally I've always disliked Atkinson. Atkinson, Halsey and Dowd. They always make me feel like some money have shifted hands. Just don't rate them. 

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, Herman22 said:

There is one thing that is very important to understand if you are to understand the way VAR is going to be used in the Premier League this year. VAR is there to correct "Clear and Obvious" errors made by the on field refs under the headings mentioned above. 

So what the ref does on the pitch is so important. In reality you could have two identical incidents and one will be a pen and one will not. Let's take the Villa game at the weekend. The ref blows for a pen in the first min against Heaton. So the on field decision is pen. The VAR can only say no pen if it is a clear and obvious error by the on field ref and that bar is set high. Even if the VAR feels he wouldn't give a pen the ref has called it as a pen and the VAR may take the view it not clear and obvious error so the on field decision remains. 

In the second half Wesley goes down after a collision with the keeper. On field decision is no pen. Again, the VAR needs to tell the ref, if he wants to overturn the decision, that he has made a clear and obvious error and it's a pen. Another example of this was the pen not given for City against Spurs when the guy is wrestled to the ground. The ref said no pen and the VAR didn't have the balls to overrule it. 

It seems to be the VAR as used in England is having it's hands tied by the rules. 90% of the time the VAR will stick with the on field decision because the bar of 'clear and obvious' is set too high. 

So why was the City goal disallowed then as that was not a clear and obvious error - not a single person witnessing the game even considered there might have been an issue.

And close offsides, where there's centimetres in it - again, how is that clear and obvious when it takes multiple replays and fancy virtual lines drawn across the screen to ascertain it?

It remains a bunch of bullshit for me, granted it's not been as damaging thus far as I first feared in terms of it disrupting play but my position has not changed one iota, I don't like it and I don't see the need for it.

[Stevo985]

41 minutes ago, Pimlico_Villa said:

The issue with VAR is that, I believe, it is still operated by Referees. And we all know that Referees are largely incompetent and will do nothing but look out for one another. 

The operators in the studio should be independent. 

The thing is, it obviously has to be referees who operate it, because they have to be trained in the laws of the game.

And we might say refs are incompetent, but the referees who are in charge of premier league football matches are quite literally the best referees the country has to offer, and probably rank pretty high in referees the world has to offer.

 

The gap between how good we expect referees to be and how good they actually are will always be huge. I think it's impossible to bridge it.

[OxfordVillan]

Until teams are allowed to  challenge decisions I will not believe that VAR is anything other than an instrument to carry on the status quo whilst parading as open and transparent. Similar to cricket and tennis, football MUST allow teams to make their own challenges, maybe 2 per half and keep them if proven correct. Oh, and mic the refs so they have to talk through a decision on the big screen. 

[Junxs]

3 hours ago, Zatman said:

Maybe I am a bit biased but the Wesley penalty claim. Yes the keeper got the ball but he still took him out

Keepers are allowed away with murder

I think its down to the refs initial decision and then up to VAR to prove it wrong, kind of like cricket where the umpire gives a soft decision so unless its an obvious error it wont be over ruled. Heatons was given as a penalty then VAR couldnt find evidence to disprove it (rightly so). Whereas the Wesley issue was given no penalty, had Atkinson given it as a penalty then it probably would have stood

[villa4europe]

what does "good game management" even mean? he didn't send him off because it would have ruined the game? talking to him rather than booking him stopped the bad tackles? (which it obviously didn't)

surprised he didn't wheel out subbed off rather than sent off, that's what everyone wants to see

no its not!

[villa4europe]

15 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

The gap between how good we expect referees to be and how good they actually are will always be huge. I think it's impossible to bridge it.

agree but at the same time I think the professionalism, especially with regards to the athleticism, is now way behind where it could and should be

how many people are working behind the scenes to put aston villa players out on the pitch? (how many are there for city...) and then how many are there for Martin Atkinson? he has fitness tests and assessments during the year, its still not the well paid full time job that it needs to be

it wouldn't bother me if Atkinson was a multi multi millionaire from being a ref, I just want him to be better, we jumped feet first in with technology rather than employing more people to help get it right, he should have a physio, a sports scientist, a nutritionist, the lot supporting him, definitely a psychologist 

 

[Junxs]

The trouble with football decisions is that they are not clear cut, since not every foul is a yellow card.

On that basis I don't want to see VAR taking over by deciding for the ref when to book players.

The difference with Cricket and Tennis is that its clear cut, either the ball is going on to hit the stumps or its not, either the ball is out or its in. That's why I love the goal line technology, it's clear cut. Everything else in football is opinion based unless it's something the ref didn't see, or thought he saw like a dive for a penalty. I'm hoping thats all VAR is checking and trusting the referees decision otherwise we'd have penalties every game like at the world cup.

You have to draw the line somewhere, yes a 2nd yellow card is a game changing decision but again its subjective as some refs would give a yellow card for one offence which other refs wouldnt. Certain Villa fans are only asking for it because we got stung by it yesterday.. You could argue over the years some teams had a better goalscoring record from corners than they did penalties. Or free kicks at the edge of the box.. I'd trust Beckham to score a free kick more than Whelan scoring a penalty for example. What about Stokes specialist throw ins, they were more dangerous than corners, you could understand their fans had that been now wanting VAR for throw ins. I won't say Man U fans asking for VAR for free kicks as they probably got more than they deserved anyway, especially when Ronaldo was playing for them 

[Chindie]

VAR would have to be able to intervene in the event of a missed yellow card offence. The thing with Billing at the weekend wasn't so much that he wasn't given the yellow straight after his first caution (in all honesty I'd have been disappointed if a Villa player was carded for that offence, but you'd have to be stupid to go for that challenge straight after you've had a yellow) but the sheer number of offences afterwards that he should have been booked for was daft. In that case the ref is obviously making an error, and if there's the ability for a second opinion to intervene, they should. It was farcical that Bournemouth ended that match with 11 men.

[bobzy]

15 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

But there's plenty of times when defenders block shots with their arms unintentionally or stop crosses coming in unintentionally and it absolutely should be a penalty.

The argument that it's not deliberate doesn't wash. If you've stopped a chance or a goal with your arm it shouldn't be allowed whether you meant it or not.

And the clamour isn't to see MORE penalties. It's to have a clear distinction so that decisions are consistent.

But that's unclear - especially with crosses.  How do you determine whether a cross is going to be good or not and, therefore, a chance has been stopped?  Giving a penalty in that situation for an accidental handball is way too harsh IMO.

Deliberate handballs and also those which accidentally block goal-bound shots should be the only things punished.  They've **** up with the current rule change.

[Stevo985]

Just now, bobzy said:

But that's unclear - especially with crosses.  How do you determine whether a cross is going to be good or not and, therefore, a chance has been stopped?  Giving a penalty in that situation for an accidental handball is way too harsh IMO.

Deliberate handballs and also those which accidentally block goal-bound shots should be the only things punished.  They've **** up with the current rule change.

Yeah we're way apart on our opinions here so we're never going to agree.

 

For me one of the fundamental rules of football is you can't use your hands. Your suggestion above, imo, pretty much takes that rule out unless you've clearly deliberately done so, which like I said happens probably a couple of times a season.

[sidcow]

It's a matter of time till we have finished celebrating scoring a goal to then have it chalked off and I am not looking forward to that one bit.

[DaveAV1]

51 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

So why was the City goal disallowed then as that was not a clear and obvious error - not a single person witnessing the game even considered there might have been an issue.

And close offsides, where there's centimetres in it - again, how is that clear and obvious when it takes multiple replays and fancy virtual lines drawn across the screen to ascertain it?

It remains a bunch of bullshit for me, granted it's not been as damaging thus far as I first feared in terms of it disrupting play but my position has not changed one iota, I don't like it and I don't see the need for it.

I think the rule for VAR being involved is, as you say, for clear and obvious mistakes, but also for anything that results in a goal. So that’s why the City goal was disallowed, which by the sound of it was a stupid decision. VAR must be used in keeping with the spirit of the game or risks ruining matches and alienating fans, players and managers.

Marginal offside decisions I can live with, as gaining a fraction can make a difference, but micro analysis of whether the ball has brushed a fibre on a player’s shirt is a total nonsense and has no practical impact on the goal being scored. 

[PompeyVillan]

I think the implementation is rubbish.

If it is there to only correct clangers then why use it for razor edge offside decisions? 

They'd be better off saying "VAR is there to correct any obvious wrong decision or one missed but the referee and won't intervene in any decision that is open to interpretation or an acceptable margin of human error (IE narrow offsides or not seeing a ball brush an arm)".

For example, it should be used if the ref books the wrong player or for an incident that the referee doesn't see. 

Everything else just leave the same, including offsides and penalties because it's tedious having this ridiculous check to only then back a potentially incorrect decision. Then rule out a goal because it has brushed an attackers arm. Or allow Billing to stay on the pitch when quite obviously he should have been sent off. 

I hate it, either check absolutely everything that could impact the game or don't. 

[Genie]

VAR shining a big bright light on this vague interpretation rule that has been the same for years. Its always been a bit of a judgement call for the ref on the pitch, now people demanding absolute clarity which is close to impossible. Only way really is to punish all and any contacts of the ball with hand which is what I thought we had, but sounds not that clear still.

[bannedfromHandV]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Yeah we're way apart on our opinions here so we're never going to agree.

 

For me one of the fundamental rules of football is you can't use your hands. Your suggestion above, imo, pretty much takes that rule out unless you've clearly deliberately done so, which like I said happens probably a couple of times a season.

But is it not also fundamental that you cannot make your arms disappear?

[Talldarkandransome]

I thought that VAR would be displayed on the screens, as in the replays that the VAR man would be watching. I may have misunderstood though

[PieFacE]

4 hours ago, PompeyVillan said:

I think the implementation is rubbish.

If it is there to only correct clangers then why use it for razor edge offside decisions? 

They'd be better off saying "VAR is there to correct any obvious wrong decision or one missed but the referee and won't intervene in any decision that is open to interpretation or an acceptable margin of human error (IE narrow offsides or not seeing a ball brush an arm)".

For example, it should be used if the ref books the wrong player or for an incident that the referee doesn't see. 

Everything else just leave the same, including offsides and penalties because it's tedious having this ridiculous check to only then back a potentially incorrect decision. Then rule out a goal because it has brushed an attackers arm. Or allow Billing to stay on the pitch when quite obviously he should have been sent off. 

I hate it, either check absolutely everything that could impact the game or don't. 

How narrow is a narrow offside?

Where do you draw the line to what gets checked and what doesn't? What if there were two "marginal" offsides in one game but VAR only checked one of them? 

Offside is a black and white decision, like the ball crossing the line. It's a bit like asking for goals to be given when 95% of the ball crosses the line as it only "marginally" hasn't crossed.

Edited August 19, 2019 by PieFacE

[a m ole]

15 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

How narrow is a narrow offside?

Where do you draw the line to what gets checked and what doesn't? What if there were two "marginal" offsides in one game but VAR only checked one of them? 

Offside is a black and white decision, like the ball crossing the line. It's a bit like asking for goals to be given when 95% of the ball crosses the line as it only "marginally" hasn't crossed.

the only issue with the ‘narrow’ offside calls is where the technology isn’t good enough to call it 100%, like both Sterling incidents in that City game.

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

But is it not also fundamental that you cannot make your arms disappear?

Yes